Cant decide whether to upgrade my camera and lense or just a new lense. I shoot Family, sport/action, travel, night and wildlife. Ive recently got into astro photography and want to try and get some better images.

My current set up is 60D with 24-105mm f4 and 70-200mm f2.8 is ii.

Im looking at 2 options

1. Get either EFS 17-55mm or 16-35mm L or any other lense combo recommended

2. Change camera to either 5diii or 6d and get just the 16-35mm.

My heart says option 2 my head says option 1.

Im not 100% convinced i need to move up to full frame. Will i be dissapointed with the upgrade from my 60D or should i go with the 70D or 7d instead of full frame?

You already have two great full frame lenses so an upgrade to a full frame camera might really be the right choice. Better sensor, better low light performance, more wide angle (less tele) - overall a pretty good choice. You could go for a used Sigma 12-24mm instead of a 16-35mm as well - more wide angle (pretty extreme), much less money and it's not overlapping with the 24-105mm.

OK - at least that was what I went for. Nothing against the 16-35mm - it's a nice lens.

I agree going to a full frame is a worth it, upgrading from the 60D isn`t really.

If astro photography is a going to become a main priority, the 6D is going to be a good option. Its useable up to iso 25600. Certainly better than the 7D with the Sigma 30 1.4. For me it was a huge jump going from the 6D to the 7D, when it came to indoor and low light photography. I had to really work at it with the 7D and even with the Sigma 30 1.4, its nothing to what the 6D can do with any lens. In good light, I still love the 7D and for bird photography the crop sensor is great for that extra reach.

Not sure about the 16-35 2.8 though, its big heavy and expensive. Might be better at looking at a prime lens or two, like a 30 1.4 be sharper and let more light in. Prime lenses on full frame are awesome. I have used the canon 40 2.8 for that and the 24-70 Tamron. I would like to add a 1.4 aperture lens at some point, my sigma is not suitable for ff.Its see the 16-35 mainly as landscape lens and when do you use it at 2.8, never??? ( generally you will be using a tripod then anyway )? For those reasons I got the 17-40 f4, just couldn`t stretch the budget to the 16-35.

The other thing that surprised me, even though technically I knew what to expect, was using the lenses in their real focal length. ie your 70-200 will become more of a general purpose and portrait lens on a ff sensor than a zoom lens on the crop sensor. It would also be useful for astro photography.

Maybe consider the 6D the 17-40 and then a nice prime lens?????It will compliment the 60D nicely, using both ff and crop sensor is like doubling your lens collection.

I have just come back from 7week holiday with family and caravan, I use the 6D with the 17-40 and the 7D with the 70-300 mainly. But often the 7D had the 24-70 Tamron 2.8 on it and the 6D the 70-300. The 7D and the 24-70 is something I use more than I expected.

I did take a shot of the sky one night, taken somewhere along the Nullarbor.

A lens with an aperture that can open to f/2.8, or wider, is going to be desirable if the shooter wishes the stars to be points of light, rather than elongated due to movement. This is what I have gathered from reading, due to a developing personal interest in astrophotography, not (much) actual experience. (My few humble attempts have been with a Nikkor 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, with terrestrial foreground subjects, and Orion's belt in the background, plus a few moon shots with longer lenses under conditions that allowed stars to be visible incidentally.)

Another factor, however, is saggital coma flare, which affects points of light near the edges of an image, whether city lights or stars. Be sure to seek information from multiple sources, if astrophotography is important. Not all astrophotographers will agree; I have read quite a bit of debate, in the past, for example, on whether the Canon 24mm 1.4L II had too much saggital coma flare, or an "acceptable" level, for astrophotography.

A lens for astrophotography need not necessarily be a wide-angle. The legendary Nikkor Noct 58mm 1.2 AI, for example, was devloped specifically to minimize saggital coma flare. These fit the Nikon mount, and command collector's prices today, so are not likely to be in contention for most Canon shooters.)

I wish to emphasize, again, I am a beginner with star-shooting, just sharing information, not offering experience-based advice.

Great shot Maxjj that is exactly why i wanted to get into astrophotography. Not sure if i can really afford to keep the 60d and get a 6d as well. I could get the 6d now and make do with the lenses i have and look to get a prime later on. Any suggestions for that?

I got sick of changing lenses all the time, I was forever changing from zoom to wide angle lenses. It was frustrating and as my wife also enjoys taking photos, I was considering buying another crop sensor. Going ff gave us a much improved low light performance and gave our lenses a new perspective.

If I go on a bushwalk, I take the 6D with the 17-40 and the 7D with the 70-300. Its also nice to have a backup body and since they both take the same battery, they compliment each other well. So I like having both.

As far as what prime to recommend if you did get a 6D, I would suggest the 40 2.8 St, its a little gem. Alternatively the 30 Sigma 1.4 or the canon/sigma 50 1.4.But why not use the 24-105L and see what focal length suits, then buy the appropriate prime, if you still see the need

Totally agree on changing lenses all the time. Maybe im just lazy!! I also hate lugging around a load of equipment which i may not need. Im now thinking of getting either the 6d or 5d mk 3 and seeing how it goes before getting another lense.

not sure why you keep mentioning the 16-35mm, its not the sharpest lens out there and I would suggest that it wouldn`t be the first choice for astro photography.The 16-35 nearly costs as much as a 6D and on the 60D will give you the same angle of view as the 6D with the 24-105L which you already have. So what do you really gain by buying the 16-35L and using it on the 60D?